Community

Nov 3, 2009 -- 10:25AM, Scypio wrote:

Well, I'm sure you'll still run into balance concerns (either removing or adding). But when you add new content, you'll have to create mechanics. How is that easier than ignoring certain material? I understand it can be difficult for balance purposes, but you have that if you're adding.

In it's current state I admit alignment is really easy to carve out.  Back when it was a little more tied into the mechanics you ran into all sorts of problems like "What do the Paladin/Monk get in exchange forall these alignment abilities.  How do I work domains?  Cleric spontanious casting?  DR?  Was this ability given the Evil prereq because it's broken?"  Basically if alignment means something it's a little harder to pull out everything, while putting in a new overlaying system will require some tweaks, but can be implemented in stages, with nerfs and buffs occuring as required.

From a psycholigical standpoint it's a lot easier to tweak your own stuff then the printed rules.  And youll get way less player grumbling.

Making anything default shoehorns new players into using it even if its detrimental.

True.  But it should be avoided if it's detrimental most of the time.

I'm not against alignment being an optional rule, especially if its well supported. I would much rather prefer that over its current state where it basically just exists in name. If I had to implement alignment in 4e, I think the best method would have been to place a description (increase the current size by deleting the section on gods) in the PHB with the optional clause and refer to something like the Greyhawk's setting guide which could have much more detailed rules. And then add a few alignment specific content in each supplement.

This I can agree with.  I would like to see good well worked out optional rules for alignment, because while campaigns where there's a Epic struggle between Good and Evil aren't as common as people claim, they still can be fun campaigns.  And the Dms who run them should have a nice rules set availible to them.  In fact having them as an optional rule with as good explination and implementation would also help those people who do use alignment use it better in their campaigns.

Nov 3, 2009 -- 3:47PM, DaidojiTaidoru wrote:

None of us on these boards are likely in any position to judge what kinds of campaigns are most common, however, the epic struggle between good and evil is part of the default setting

No.  Not really.  Sure there's Good and Evil.  And they don't get along.  But they also work together when nessicary and have internal dispute all the time.  And most people just ignore the whole thing.  Sure you're more likely to be killing cultists of Vecna cause they're jerks then asking them where the "save the universe from Lovecraftian horrors" artifact is, but that options always there.  Even good aligned characters pay offhand tribute to Lloth (according to Devine Power), and there's a good chance that a temple to Bane is sitting down the street from a Temple to Bahamut.  This doesn't happen if there's actually an Epic struggle between Good and Evil.  The Jedi don't let the Sith put up a branch office just because that planet has a "freedom of religion" clause.

Nov 3, 2009 -- 9:58AM, williamhm75 wrote:

NO Ive just played with dms who rigorously enforced the alignment rules.  Friend of mine was playing a paladin to protect a friend he lied multiple times, dm decided that Lawful good means telling the truth and he lost his paladin abilities.  Also saw a good character killed by a smite good from a black guard again in my opinion total BS.  I also saw people who based their entire personality around one alignment to avoid an alignment shift and made flat characters.  IN my opinion you can either have a character with personality or one with alignment but not both.

I saw a character die from being hit with a critical hit - they should totally get rid of that BS mechanic.

Yeah, and once a DM had a character arrested and locked up without any of my stuff. DM's are always trying to screw with you.

Oct 24, 2009 -- 7:06PM, Vaalingrade wrote:

I don't know why this thread even exists.

The bloody system has no in game effects anymore. It can't hinder you. It's all a usless label. Meaningless.

What in my most unholy name is there to discuss?!

It doesn't matter! It doesn't matter at all! Don't you get it? We're free!

 

Ding Dong! Alignment's dead. Which old Alignment? The game ruining alignment!

Still as articulate and wise as ever I see...

Oct 23, 2009 -- 9:05AM, Maxperson wrote:

A child molester absolutely can be a good man in other areas.  Child molestation doesn't automatically make anything good that he believes a "mask" or "front" for his pedophelia.  That you can't think of him as a good man is a PRIME example of why alignment doesn't work.  According to the alignment system, someone must be either good OR evil, but never both.  You've fallen into the alignment trap.  With a real personality, good and evil are not so clear cut and you can have someone who is both.  The evil is never excusable because of the good, but it also doesn't make the good, not good.

You seem to be confusing yourself and others here. Good is only good in the absence of evil. Think of it like a bucket of water. Clear, clean water reamins clean and clear only so long as you do not add any dirt (evil) to it. Once you add that dirt, the water will always be muddy (evil or unaligned) whereas you can add as much clean, clear water to a bucket of dirt as you want and you will still only get muddy water. Once a rapist, molester or murderer and you are forever tainted. You will never be truely "good" ever again. You can cease commiting your evil acts and dedicate yourself to doing good but you will still bear the taint of evil for the rest of your life.